From dev-return-24820-apmail-forrest-dev-archive=forrest.apache.org@forrest.apache.org Tue Jun 27 05:56:26 2006
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 72144 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2006 05:56:26 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199)
by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Jun 2006 05:56:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 14966 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2006 05:56:25 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@forrest.apache.org
Received: (qmail 14933 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2006 05:56:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help:
list-unsubscribe:
List-Post:
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
List-Id:
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@forrest.apache.org
Received: (qmail 14922 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jun 2006 05:56:24 -0000
Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:56:24 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Received: from [65.77.211.84] (HELO www2.kc.aoindustries.com) (65.77.211.84)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:56:24 -0700
Received: from www2.kc.aoindustries.com (www2.kc.aoindustries.com [65.77.211.84])
by www2.kc.aoindustries.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5R5u2rT029705
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:56:02 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
by www2.kc.aoindustries.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k5R5u1RY029624
for dev@forrest.apache.org; Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:56:01 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.kc.aoindustries.com: indexgeo set sender to crossley@apache.org using -f
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:55:57 +1000
From: David Crossley
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: future of Forrest Friday get togethers
Message-ID: <20060627055557.GD13085@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
References: <20060626060024.GK28340@igg.indexgeo.com.au> <200606261341.k5QDf6f9014953@mail.e-wire.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200606261341.k5QDf6f9014953@mail.e-wire.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
Gav.... wrote:
> Replying to the original post, but I'll try and reply to other comments
> also.
Thanks Gav, we needed to hear from people like you.
I respond to some of your observations below.
Please don't take anything personally.
> Dirks summary of his notes says:-
>
> "...General discussion item -> encourage/allow more of this IRC
> but experiment with better ID's and summaries to mailing list
> until we confirm wide community participation ?..."
>
> So to me it seems the board is not against IRC as such, and will keep an
> Eye out to see if it works then maybe it can spread elsewhere.
The other way to read it is that the Board is
very concerned about the use of this medium.
The question mark at the end seems important.
Past experience has shown that it can go against
the community building which is enabled by the use
of non-synchronous mailing lists.
By the way, Forrest is not the only project using IRC.
> To me as a dev community member it has worked (for me) and has been most
> Invaluable.
Good.
> Having real time chat sessions means that I can 'get in the zone' of
> something, ask a question, try it, come back, get some more feedback
> More or less straight away, ask some more etc... and I get something done,
> something more understood that day.
However look at it another way. We explicity say that
it is not a help forum. See the log for June 2006. I needed
to turn away someone who wanted user assistance.
In general, answering such questions prevents the other
developers from getting stuff done and the whole session
would lose focus if it was a busy channel.
With you it has been different because you are obviously
there to assist with at least one aim of FF - to collaboratively
deal with some thorny issues that are scheduled in Jira.
> Sure, eventually after a few emails to and from the list over a few days I
> might end up with the same result. But each time I have to re-enter the zone
> of thought, try it out, email the list, wait a day or so, try it again.
I know what you mean. However i reckon that the
turnaround of the mailing list is reasonable.
Any delay is just something that we need to deal with.
Some days i see very fast turnaround, almost real time.
> So IRC for me is invaluable for some aspects of Forrest to get my head
> around with some real talk. It is by no means a replacement for the main
> mail lists - which would also benefit by the logs.
>
> > It is now time to assess whether we want to continue.
> > I have been wanting to raise this issue for a while
> > The discussion at Incubator [2] spurred me.
>
> I might answer that one too if the conversation looks like it might like my
> input.
>
> > Is it successful for us at Apache Forrest?
>
> So far I think yes. I agree with some of what Ross says re:XHTML2. In other
> words maybe we should not try to make major decisions on the future of some
> aspects of forrest via IRC and those that participate at the time.
We agreed on this even before we started any Forrest Friday.
It is mentioned twice on http://forrest.apache.org/forrest-friday.html
-David